Interstate 87 (NC-VA)

[wdcrft63]

Wow, you can get whiplash following the back-and-forth in this thread. North Carolina has capable defenders and equally capable detractors.

Let me back way up for some deeper context. In addition to being the Tar Heel State, NC has called itself the Good Roads State for the past century or more. Now that name was always more aspirational than descriptive: the state has always had and still has some not-so-good roads.

However, North Carolina really wants to be the Good Roads State. Road-building is a big deal here. We pay 34.55 cents a gallon gas tax. That is the ninth highest in the country, I believe; for sure it is much higher than the rate in any other southern state except for Florida. If you've driven through North Carolina, then I'm sure you're nodding your head: the gas tax in North Carolina is more than twice that in South Carolina and more than 50% higher than in Virginia.

Well, guess what: if you have more money you can build more roads and you can spread them out across the state. By my count North Carolina has 2,149 miles of freeway today with about 50 miles of freeways under construction. Depending on how you classify some of the approved but maybe-not-signed routes, the state has about 1400 miles of Interstate highways and therefore about 750 miles of non-Interstate highways.

Several contributors to the forum are skeptical that building roads attracts economic development. It's easy to argue this for a particular route such as the proposed I-87. But look at the big picture. In the last 50 years North Carolina has grown very fast in both wealth and population despite the fact that its three major industries 50 years ago (tobacco, textiles, and furniture) all collapsed during that period. At the end of the day, infrastructure has to have some importance for economic development.

So if you think North Carolina has "too many" freeways or "too many" Interstate routes, help yourself. Just don't expect North Carolinians to pay much attention to your opinion.

[WashuOtaku]

When N.C. talks about "Norfolk" as the control city, are they assuming that I-464 will be renumbered and I-87 being overlapped onto I-264 into Norfolk?

No, they are using "Norfolk" as a destination, even if it means going onto another highway to get there. We have examples of this on every type of road, best example is all the roads that list "Myrtle Beach" as a destination, despite most converging onto US 501.

The City of Chesapeake is a major city in and of itself, and it is definitely separate from Norfolk.

Norfolk is where the Navy and the jobs are; basically the bigger name.

[Beltway]

To an extent. However, bear in mind what I linked earlier. NC's Congressional delegation made it no secret what I-87's true purpose is when the ROAD Act was first introduced. What really sealed the deal was the fact that the Regional Transportation Alliance in Raleigh pushed and lobbied hard for a Raleigh-Norfolk interstate, as well as support from Hampton Roads. You would've been hard put to find any local politician that would've opposed giving the world's largest naval base an additional interstate connection. Whenever there's a military base along or at the beginning/end of a proposed interstate, it makes getting it approved much easier.

Support north of the border has been tepid at best, and at that chambers of commerce and the like.  As I have shown repeatedly, the "Raleigh-Norfolk interstate" concept is deceitful at best and malfeasance at worst.

There is no reason why the "world's largest naval base" needs "an additional interstate connection", and it is quite a distance from the City of Chesapeake in any case. 

I would like to see I-564 extended to I-664, but that has been approved at least in concept for 15 years and is still on the long range plan for the area.

In other words, eastern NC threw the football and Raleigh & Norfolk ran it to the end zone.

They threw a touchdown pass to the opposing team.  Wrong end zone.  Oops.

Eastern NC gets the interstate they want while Raleigh & Hampton Roads take the credit.

I really don't think that the Hampton Roads area cares.  They already have high capacity highway access to the north, northwest, west and and south.  The day is coming when US-13 to the north will be all 4 lanes, even if it may take awhile to fund the parallel the Chesapeake Channel Tunnel.  Capacity improvements are coming to US-58 and I-64.  Hopefully the US-460 freeway project will be revived in some manner, the previous governor T-Mac really blew it in a big way.  There are two 4-lane rural arterial corridors the south, Route 168/US-158 and US-17.

[Beltway]

So if you think North Carolina has "too many" freeways or "too many" Interstate routes, help yourself. Just don't expect North Carolinians to pay much attention to your opinion.

That is the kind of attitude that is becoming more and more disturbing.   The state is a rapid population growth state (20-22% per decade compared to national average of 12%), so there are major highway needs, and they are putting a lot of effort forth in that area.

Any state has some influence on the other states thru its highway policies.  In the case of Virginia, we share a border several hundred miles long and the road systems intertwine and by my count there are 38 highways that cross the border.

North Carolina I suppose is entitled to it's highway policies, but they are putting a variety of direct and indirect pressures on other states particularly the bordering states, and that is a major concern, and this HPC 13 / Interstate issue highlights what I don't like about how they run their highway system when it directly impacts other states.  And they do directly impact border states where there are major highway crossings.

I believe that HPC 13 is fully completed to 4-lane rural arterial standards, and that a variety of localized improvements are all that is needed over the next 30+ years.

[Strider]

So if you think North Carolina has "too many" freeways or "too many" Interstate routes, help yourself. Just don't expect North Carolinians to pay much attention to your opinion.

That is the kind of attitude that is becoming more and more disturbing.   The state is a rapid population growth state (20-22% per decade compared to national average of 12%), so there are major highway needs, and they are putting a lot of effort forth in that area.

Any state has some influence on the other states thru its highway policies.  In the case of Virginia, we share a border several hundred miles long and the road systems intertwine and by my count there are 38 highways that cross the border.

North Carolina I suppose is entitled to it's highway policies, but they are putting a variety of direct and indirect pressures on other states particularly the bordering states, and that is a major concern, and this HPC 13 / Interstate issue highlights what I don't like about how they run their highway system when it directly impacts other states.  And they do directly impact border states where there are major highway crossings.

I believe that HPC 13 is fully completed to 4-lane rural arterial standards, and that a variety of localized improvements are all that is needed over the next 30+ years.

I am sorry you don't like it. I-87 is going to be built. It is the way it is going to be.

[Beltway]

I believe that HPC 13 is fully completed to 4-lane rural arterial standards, and that a variety of localized improvements are all that is needed over the next 30+ years.

I am sorry you don't like it. I-87 is going to be built. It is the way it is going to be.

VDOT has much bigger fish to fry.  At the CTB meeting last week I got a good explanation from an engineering executive about how the $3.4 billion 6-lane HRBT and approaches expansion is going to be funded, a package of approved funding mechanisms of which HOT tolls is only about 10% of the total; and that an 8-lane design is still under consideration.  I feel a lot better about the project now.

[LM117]

When N.C. talks about "Norfolk" as the control city, are they assuming that I-464 will be renumbered and I-87 being overlapped onto I-264 into Norfolk?

No, they are using "Norfolk" as a destination, even if it means going onto another highway to get there. We have examples of this on every type of road, best example is all the roads that list "Myrtle Beach" as a destination, despite most converging onto US 501.

The City of Chesapeake is a major city in and of itself, and it is definitely separate from Norfolk.

Norfolk is where the Navy and the jobs are; basically the bigger name.

Plus, Chesapeake is already used as a control city for US-17 Bypass in Elizabeth City, so it's not like it's totally left out.

[sprjus4]

I believe that HPC 13 is fully completed to 4-lane rural arterial standards, and that a variety of localized improvements are all that is needed over the next 30+ years.

I am sorry you don't like it. I-87 is going to be built. It is the way it is going to be.

VDOT has much bigger fish to fry.  At the CTB meeting last week I got a good explanation from an engineering executive about how the $3.4 billion 6-lane HRBT and approaches expansion is going to be funded, a package of approved funding mechanisms of which HOT tolls is only about 10% of the total; and that an 8-lane design is still under consideration.  I feel a lot better about the project now.

What I disagree about with the HRBT is expansion, that in the end, it's just going to add a HOT lane in each direction. And if 8 lanes is chosen, similar to the High Rise Bridge, it will be two HOT and two general purpose. The project needs to widen the general purpose lanes as well, not just simply more tolled lanes. That's all VDOT seems to do these days with widenings like this, same with I-95. The High Rise & HRBT both only add HOT lanes, no free lanes. Both of these need to be 3 general purpose, with 1 HOT in each direction. As for HRBT, the issue everyone was concerned with having a 4-lane tunnel is that it would be a short lane, with lots of weaving. The tunnel needs to be built as a 4-lane tunnel with one lane simply striped off, but capable for future expansion. The land section should be 1 HOT, 2 general for now, but if ever expanded in the future, one HOT, 3 general. Obviously, a 10 or 12 lane option would've worked the best, but money gets in the way with those, so the 4 should be chosen.

As per 95, it needs to be widened to 8 lanes from Richmond to DC, and 6-8 lanes from Richmond to North Carolina. C/D lanes and braided-ramps should also be installed between heavily traveled interchanges. No tolled lanes non-sense. These express lanes may work in urban areas, but when you try to build a whole network and use it as an excuse to avoid general purpose widening just because it's "cheaper", that's just a scam for money, and to benefit those with 3+ people (or 2 in HR), or those that can pay. I know people that commute through 95 daily, and they can't use the express lanes unless paying a super high toll. VDOT is showing no effort whatsoever to improve 95. It's just adding HOT lanes to help the rich and the families & carpools through, not the actual daily commuters of the interstate, most of which don't travel HOV, like VDOT seems to think everybody does. Take a peek at I-85 in North Carolina. They're continuously widening I-85 through the state to 8 lanes. Not once have I seen a toll lane on that interstate. Now if only they'll widen I-95 in NC. Anyways, this whole HOT concept in VA spreading from North Virginia to Hampton Roads, and pretty soon they'll find some excuse to eventually bring it down 95 to Richmond. It's ridiculous, and VDOT doesn't listen to the motoring public.

Look at North Carolina. They tried introducing HOT lanes on I-77, and there was lots of opposition. NCDOT is listening, and considering buying out the contract, and widening I-77 to general purpose. This is what VDOT needs to do. Stop leaving the interstates in these urban areas as they are, and just adding HOT lanes. Widen the interstates in the free lanes, then maybe ONE toll lane in each direction at max, once the interstate is widened out in the general purpose lanes to at least 3 or 4 lanes in each direction.

Sorry to go all out on the whole HOT lane thing, as it doesn't relate to this thread, but I just have to get this off my mind. The way Virginia uses this whole HOT lane concept to avoid general-purpose projects, and just to make money in the big guys pockets just pisses me off.

[Beltway]

What I disagree about with the HRBT is expansion, that in the end, it's just going to add a HOT lane in each direction. And if 8 lanes is chosen, similar to the High Rise Bridge, it will be two HOT and two general purpose. The project needs to widen the general purpose lanes as well, not just simply more tolled lanes. That's all VDOT seems to do these days with widenings like this, same with I-95. The High Rise & HRBT both only add HOT lanes, no free lanes. Both of these need to be 3 general purpose, with 1 HOT in each direction. As for HRBT, the issue everyone was concerned with having a 4-lane tunnel is that it would be a short lane, with lots of weaving. The tunnel needs to be built as a 4-lane tunnel with one lane simply striped off, but capable for future expansion. The land section should be 1 HOT, 2 general for now, but if ever expanded in the future, one HOT, 3 general. Obviously, a 10 or 12 lane option would've worked the best, but money gets in the way with those, so the 4 should be chosen.

There is no room for 10 or 12 lanes thru the I-64 approaches in Hampton and Norfolk, even 8 lanes is a squeeze if possible.  No reason why a 4-lane roadway couldn't have only one HOT lane.

That is why I favored what was approved in 2000 (CBA 9) to extend I-564 to I-664 and to expand the I-664 tunnel to 10 lanes, also widening all of I-664 and connecting I-564 to Portsmouth.  There is ample room for a 8 to 10 lane I-664.  It would have been very expensive but it could have been built in 5 separate segments as funding became available.  CBA 9 would have left the HRBT as is with 4 lanes and the I-664 tunnel would have become by far the highest traffic volume tunnel.  I favored this approach but the locals decided they want the HRBT widened, and build the I-564 extension some time in the future.

Managed lanes are built because general purpose widenings tend to fill up to traffic capacity too quickly within 5 to 10 years.  I-95 and I-395 in NoVA already has widths ranging from 8 lanes to 20 lanes.

The bridges and tunnels that cross ocean-going shipping channels are enormously expensive to build.  Virginia has lots of them and N.C. has none.

[wdcrft63]

As a former resident of the Old Dominion, I find this discussion fascinating. But it does belong in a different forum.

[LM117]

I know it's not directly road-related, but a recent announcement today involving development near the I-87 corridor could move the upgrade of US-64 up a notch or two in the future.

http://www.wral.com/csx-to-build-massive-cargo-terminal-in-edgecombe-county/15861789/

CSX has killed the hub.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/02/28/CSX-scraps-plans-for-rail-hub.html

[froggie]

but I have absolutely no doubts as to NC's resolve about building it anyway.

Which begs this question:  does NC plan on using its own money to fund the bulk of construction?  Or do they intend to further suck at the ever-dwindling Federal teat?  The latter certainly opens them up to deserved criticism from outside the state as it should get rolled into the broader debate over Federal priorities.

If the former, then that's their business, though I'll be the first to agree that they'd be better off focusing on other corridors within the state (like I-42 and I-95...at least between Fayetteville and Benson).

I am sorry you don't like it. I-87 is going to be built. It is the way it is going to be.

This coming from the guy who keeps saying I-73 will be built in Virginia.  I see that's worked out pretty well.

But it goes to my earlier point.  Does NC have a way to fund I-87?  Between competing needs elsewhere (including the aforementioned I-42, I-73, I-95, and I-785) and the reality of reduced Federal investment (despite what the Trump administration is claiming...they're really NOT added any new Federal money but instead are pushing towards "private investment", which = tolls), I'm not convinced.  Unless you can show proof that NCDOT has this thing funded, there are no absolutes in saying it "will be built".

[Strider]

but I have absolutely no doubts as to NC's resolve about building it anyway.

Which begs this question:  does NC plan on using its own money to fund the bulk of construction?  Or do they intend to further suck at the ever-dwindling Federal teat?  The latter certainly opens them up to deserved criticism from outside the state as it should get rolled into the broader debate over Federal priorities.

If the former, then that's their business, though I'll be the first to agree that they'd be better off focusing on other corridors within the state (like I-42 and I-95...at least between Fayetteville and Benson).

I am sorry you don't like it. I-87 is going to be built. It is the way it is going to be.

This coming from the guy who keeps saying I-73 will be built in Virginia.  I see that's worked out pretty well.

But it goes to my earlier point.  Does NC have a way to fund I-87?  Between competing needs elsewhere (including the aforementioned I-42, I-73, I-95, and I-785) and the reality of reduced Federal investment (despite what the Trump administration is claiming...they're really NOT added any new Federal money but instead are pushing towards "private investment", which = tolls), I'm not convinced.  Unless you can show proof that NCDOT has this thing funded, there are no absolutes in saying it "will be built".

"will be built".... that is different from what I said "going to be built". That is two different perspectives.

[froggie]

Now you're just arguing semantics.  And still doesn't answer my question about funding.

[Strider]

Now you're just arguing semantics.  And still doesn't answer my question about funding.

Because it is semantics. Maybe someone on this forum knows something about funding, or go to NCDOT's website and ask around. 

[wdcrft63]

Now you're just arguing semantics.  And still doesn't answer my question about funding.

Because it is semantics. Maybe someone on this forum knows something about funding, or go to NCDOT's website and ask around. 

I-87 is not any different from the other projects on NCDOT's plate. It will eventually be funded out of the same money pots as any other project; I don't think anyone has any special arrangements in mind.

Of course, construction is a long way off. NCDOT has begun the feasibility study to identify possible routes, but no routes have been selected yet. The environmental studies (and lawsuits) lie in the future, also quite a few public hearings.

Whenever it looks like I-87 projects will be shovel-ready within the next six or seven years or so they'll have to start competing with other needs in the northeastern area and across the state for inclusion in the STIP, the state's five-year transit improvement plan. Politics will play a part at this point, but no more so than for other high-need projects.

This is the same regular process that has built I-73 piece by piece and is now building I-42 piece by piece. It works.

[Beltway]

As a former resident of the Old Dominion, I find this discussion fascinating. But it does belong in a different forum.

Perhaps, but discussions evolve and can impact more than just the direct topic, HPC 13 in this thread.  In this case, the I-95/US-58 current route is pertinent, the highway system in the Norfolk area is pertinent, the respective highway policies of the two states is pertinent, and national highway policies is pertinent.

[Beltway]

This is the same regular process that has built I-73 piece by piece and is now building I-42 piece by piece. It works.

I-73 came out of the national trans-Interstate highway funding act, ISTEA of 1991.  An Interstate route spanning 6 states, at least that is what was authorized then by FHWA.

These recent N.C. proposed Interstates are an entirely different matter.

[Beltway]

"will be built".... that is different from what I said "going to be built". That is two different perspectives.

Both are future declaratives that mean basically the same thing.

[74/171FAN]

As a former resident of the Old Dominion, I find this discussion fascinating. But it does belong in a different forum.

Sadly I cannot move it to Mid-Atlantic since I am only a regional moderator for that area.  A global mod (or I think even the regional mod for Southeast which is florida)  can divide out the Virginia-related posts and move it over to Mid-Atlantic.  I would then be able to move it to the correct thread.  -Mark

[wdcrft63]

This is the same regular process that has built I-73 piece by piece and is now building I-42 piece by piece. It works.

I-73 came out of the national trans-Interstate highway funding act, ISTEA of 1991.  An Interstate route spanning 6 states, at least that is what was authorized then by FHWA.

These recent N.C. proposed Interstates are an entirely different matter.

That is true, and here we are, 27 years and 4 presidents later, with 98 miles of I-73 open, 4 miles under construction, and several more segments still to build. I don't know what money, if any, came with ISTEA back in 1991, but for sure it's long gone by now. NCDOT will certainly use whatever federal funds are available, but no one's crystal ball is clear enough to know what federal funding will be like out in the 2030s or whenever I-87 is under construction. So neither I-42 nor I-87 nor any other proposed NC interstate is tied to a specific fund source.

[sprjus4]

What I disagree about with the HRBT is expansion, that in the end, it's just going to add a HOT lane in each direction. And if 8 lanes is chosen, similar to the High Rise Bridge, it will be two HOT and two general purpose. The project needs to widen the general purpose lanes as well, not just simply more tolled lanes. That's all VDOT seems to do these days with widenings like this, same with I-95. The High Rise & HRBT both only add HOT lanes, no free lanes. Both of these need to be 3 general purpose, with 1 HOT in each direction. As for HRBT, the issue everyone was concerned with having a 4-lane tunnel is that it would be a short lane, with lots of weaving. The tunnel needs to be built as a 4-lane tunnel with one lane simply striped off, but capable for future expansion. The land section should be 1 HOT, 2 general for now, but if ever expanded in the future, one HOT, 3 general. Obviously, a 10 or 12 lane option would've worked the best, but money gets in the way with those, so the 4 should be chosen.

There is no room for 10 or 12 lanes thru the I-64 approaches in Hampton and Norfolk, even 8 lanes is a squeeze if possible.  No reason why a 4-lane roadway couldn't have only one HOT lane.

That is why I favored what was approved in 2000 (CBA 9) to extend I-564 to I-664 and to expand the I-664 tunnel to 10 lanes, also widening all of I-664 and connecting I-564 to Portsmouth.  There is ample room for a 8 to 10 lane I-664.  It would have been very expensive but it could have been built in 5 separate segments as funding became available.  CBA 9 would have left the HRBT as is with 4 lanes and the I-664 tunnel would have become by far the highest traffic volume tunnel.  I favored this approach but the locals decided they want the HRBT widened, and build the I-564 extension some time in the future.

Managed lanes are built because general purpose widenings tend to fill up to traffic capacity too quickly within 5 to 10 years.  I-95 and I-395 in NoVA already has widths ranging from 8 lanes to 20 lanes.

The bridges and tunnels that cross ocean-going shipping channels are enormously expensive to build.  Virginia has lots of them and N.C. has none.

I understand completely about the need for HOT lanes to fund, and to help in urban areas. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't be used for the entire 95 corridor to Richmond, as they're trying to do. And also, for Hampton Roads, focus on first getting 3 general purpose lanes, and 1 HOT, as opposed to what they're doing - 2 HOT, 2 general purpose. HOT lanes should be restricted to North Virginia down to Stafford as they are now. From where it goes from 4 lanes to 3 lanes, 95 needs to be widened to 4 general purpose down to Richmond. The HOT extension down to Fredericksburg with no general purpose lanes being added, and just in general the project as a whole, is a decision made strictly for those willing to pay to use the lanes, the 3+ people, and the big guys in the office making the money. They say no taxpayer money used is a benefit. I'd rather pay slightly higher gas taxes such as North Carolina does, and actually see an outcome - more highways and road improvement projects to make transportation better (I-95 8 lanes, I-64 6-8 lanes, I-564 Ext, etc), then just continue to add HOT lanes for the people wanting to pay $10+ for a one-way trip. The whole system of HOT lanes is a joke, it's just a money maker. Whatever uses the least money, and whatever makes even more money for the politics. It just has a little bonus of - improving travel for the people willing to pay. But the real purpose is simply for money.

If the HOT lanes ended at Stafford, and the 4-lane section continued to Richmond, C/D lanes and braided ramps added where needed, I think travel would significantly improve. They say we can't pave our way out of congestion, but we should pave as much as we can before resorting to HOT, not just build HOT in the median and use that quote every time when there's clearly room on the outside to build. Raise the taxes slightly, and use our money to improve the one of the largest & most important transportation corridor through Virginia to allow all of us, the taxpayers, to enjoy the benefits for free.  They're doing it with I-64, HOT lanes were considered, but they decided to widen general purpose. And travel has improved a great deal already with the new 3rd FREE lane open.

[Beltway]

I understand completely about the need for HOT lanes to fund, and to help in urban areas. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't be used for the entire 95 corridor to Richmond, as they're trying to do. And also, for Hampton Roads, focus on first getting 3 general purpose lanes, and 1 HOT, as opposed to what they're doing - 2 HOT, 2 general purpose. HOT lanes should be restricted to North Virginia down to Stafford as they are now. From where it goes from 4 lanes to 3 lanes, 95 needs to be widened to 4 general purpose down to Richmond. The HOT extension down to Fredericksburg with no general purpose lanes being added, and just in general the project as a whole, is a decision made strictly for those willing to pay to use the lanes, the 3+ people, and the big guys in the office making the money. They say no taxpayer money used is a benefit. I'd rather pay slightly higher gas taxes such as North Carolina does, and actually see an outcome - more highways and road improvement projects to make transportation better (I-95 8 lanes, I-64 6-8 lanes, I-564 Ext, etc), then just continue to add HOT lanes for the people wanting to pay $10+ for a one-way trip. The whole system of HOT lanes is a joke, it's just a money maker. Whatever uses the least money, and whatever makes even more money for the politics. It just has a little bonus of - improving travel for the people willing to pay. But the real purpose is simply for money.

Cut the crap, and then maybe I will take you seriously.   Managed lanes are for providing more capacity that is congestion managed so that it won't quickly fill up, thus relieving pressure on the general purpose lanes.   Allegeing that it is for "just making money" is demagogic at best.

North Carolina has much higher taxes than most states, on average the tax burden is something like 40% higher in road taxes, 30% higher in sales taxes and 30% higher in state income taxes.  Enjoy.

There is no proposal to have HOT lanes "used for the entire 95 corridor to Richmond", none has ever been proposed south of Massaponax and that only on a new reversible roadway extension.  Get your facts straight.

"95 needs to be widened to 4 general purpose down to Richmond" -- I agree but its not like massive improvements have not already been made to the 95/395 corridor over the years.  The entire 90-mile stretch from Ashland to the 14th Street Bridge has been widened at least once and in some places twice.  I-95 was widened from Richmond to Petersburg.  I suppose you could add for I-95 the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project where the Virginia Beltway approaches cost $1.0 billion, and you could certainly include the Springfield Interchange Project.   I-295 itself is a capacious outer beltway that relieves I-95 and I-64 in the Richmond-Petersburg area and it has been in place now for 25 years.

I can refine this close estimate, but for now I see where Virginia has over 400 miles of Interstate and freeway with 6 or more lanes, and over 310 miles of Interstate and freeway widening projects have been built.  Many segments all over the state on highways such as - 95, 395, 495, 267, 66, 150, 76, 64, 264, 564, and 81.  There have been many of these widening projects the first beginning back in 1965. 

[sprjus4]

I understand completely about the need for HOT lanes to fund, and to help in urban areas. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't be used for the entire 95 corridor to Richmond, as they're trying to do. And also, for Hampton Roads, focus on first getting 3 general purpose lanes, and 1 HOT, as opposed to what they're doing - 2 HOT, 2 general purpose. HOT lanes should be restricted to North Virginia down to Stafford as they are now. From where it goes from 4 lanes to 3 lanes, 95 needs to be widened to 4 general purpose down to Richmond. The HOT extension down to Fredericksburg with no general purpose lanes being added, and just in general the project as a whole, is a decision made strictly for those willing to pay to use the lanes, the 3+ people, and the big guys in the office making the money. They say no taxpayer money used is a benefit. I'd rather pay slightly higher gas taxes such as North Carolina does, and actually see an outcome - more highways and road improvement projects to make transportation better (I-95 8 lanes, I-64 6-8 lanes, I-564 Ext, etc), then just continue to add HOT lanes for the people wanting to pay $10+ for a one-way trip. The whole system of HOT lanes is a joke, it's just a money maker. Whatever uses the least money, and whatever makes even more money for the politics. It just has a little bonus of - improving travel for the people willing to pay. But the real purpose is simply for money.

Cut the crap, and then maybe I will take you seriously.   Managed lanes are for providing more capacity that is congestion managed so that it won't quickly fill up, thus relieving pressure on the general purpose lanes.   Allegeing that it is for "just making money" is demagogic at best.

North Carolina has much higher taxes than most states, on average the tax burden is something like 40% higher in road taxes, 30% higher in sales taxes and 30% higher in state income taxes.  Enjoy.

There is no proposal to have HOT lanes "used for the entire 95 corridor to Richmond", none has ever been proposed south of Massaponax and that only on a new reversible roadway extension.  Get your facts straight.

If the HOT lanes are used for congestion management, then why is there constant slow down, even south of DC, but where the lanes go to? The HOT extension south is good news for carpoolers, and yes it may relieve the general purpose slightly, but new free lanes would be a much larger benefit. Yes, lots of projects lately, but as congestion continues, there needs to more projects done. In urban areas, where space is limited, sure HOT lanes could be the answer. But south of these urban areas, where there's additional room to widen, HOT lanes shouldn't be the solution right away. When there's no more room, then they could work.

North Carolina has higher taxes, but they get so much more freeways and other road projects done, for free. I-95 is a major corridor, and HOT lanes should not be the answer. These HOT lanes extensions keep coming. It's likely they'll keep proposing little and little more to eventually hit I-295. And yes, it is a money game. We pay taxes, but there hasn't been much improvements lately other than by DC and Hampton Roads. South of DC, a "tax-free" improvement is HOT lanes. Where do our taxes go? Just into more projects for DC and HR? And the money from the HOT lanes that are supposed to be used to improve I-95? I haven't seen any improvement besides more and more tolls. Hundreds could agree with me, I'm not the only one in this argument. Our money being paid in the taxes, and the HOT tolls should be showing some outcome.

If we did have higher taxes, projects like the 460 Windsor bypass, and many other highway related projects and locality projects could've gone forth instead of just being cancelled because VDOT can't fund because money shortfall, or completed with a toll, which the incentive to pay higher taxes for more roads and major improvements would increase. NC definitely sees their benefits of paying higher taxes. They continuously are able to fund more roads, highways, and limited amounts of tolls.   

[Beltway]

If the HOT lanes are used for congestion management, then why is there constant slow down, even south of DC, but where the lanes go to? The HOT extension south is good news for carpoolers, and yes it may relieve the general purpose slightly, but new free lanes would be a much larger benefit. Yes, lots of projects lately, but as congestion continues, there needs to more projects done. In urban areas, where space is limited, sure HOT lanes could be the answer. But south of these urban areas, where there's additional room to widen, HOT lanes shouldn't be the solution right away. When there's no more room, then they could work.
North Carolina has higher taxes, but they get so much more freeways and other road projects done, for free. I-95 is a major corridor, and HOT lanes should not be the answer. These HOT lanes extensions keep coming. It's likely they'll keep proposing little and little more to eventually hit I-295. And yes, it is a money game. We pay taxes, but there hasn't been much improvements lately other than by DC and Hampton Roads. South of DC, a "tax-free" improvement is HOT lanes. Where do our taxes go? Just into more projects for DC and HR? And the money from the HOT lanes that are supposed to be used to improve I-95? I haven't seen any improvement besides more and more tolls. Hundreds could agree with me, I'm not the only one in this argument. Our money being paid in the taxes, and the HOT tolls should be showing some outcome.
If we did have higher taxes, projects like the 460 Windsor bypass, and many other highway related projects and locality projects could've gone forth instead of just being cancelled because VDOT can't fund because money shortfall, or completed with a toll, which the incentive to pay higher taxes for more roads and major improvements would increase. NC definitely sees their benefits of paying higher taxes. They continuously are able to fund more roads, highways, and limited amounts of tolls.   

The US-460 Freeway from Petersburg to Suffolk was a fully funded $1.4 billion project, and would be complete by now if not for the malfeasance of the T-Mac Regime.  Would have relieved or at least forestalled traffic grown on I-64 Richmond-Norfolk in addition to providing a direct freeway route to South Hampton Roads.

VDOT has a $5.2 billion annual budget, and there are -many- projects being funded.  Go thru the Six-Year Program and the VDOT Projects webpages.

I regularly benefit from using HOT lanes as do many others despite the high tolls.  And they do either alleviate traffic levels or forestall traffic growth in the general purpose lanes.  They also provide a high-speed corridor for express buses and car pools and van pools, and transit is certainly needed for commuters to the D.C. area urban core which includes parts of Arlington.